Apparently Zimmerman is a monster or not, part II

Actually it was a good decision because we have seen this kid labeled as a thug, burglar, gangsta, punk, etc. and all he was doing was walking home coming from the store minding his own business.

Zimmerman put himself and his family in this predicament when he wanted to play wanna be cop.

Have you ever lost a child?

I can't speak for anyone else, but if you want to contribute to the Zimmerman Fund by all means do so, if someone wants to contribute to the Martin Fund then by all means do so.

You complain about folks complain about folks complain about folks giving to the Zimmerman Fund, but you turn around and do the same about those giving to the Martin Fund.

Sounds hypocritical too me.

 

No, there were two people involved in the confrontation, responsibility for the actual incident itself cannot go any farther than the person who initiated the direct physical altercation which inevitably led to Martin being shot. The physical evidence tends to [very strongly] suggest that the party responsible for initiating the physical altercation was Martin. Aside from that, blame cannot be placed, as it becomes circular and fallacious in nature. Many different people could be "blamed" for what happened based on the so-called "logic" your post seems to utilize. Basically anyone who indirectly contributed to what led to the physical altercation could be blamed. So Martin could be the cause of Zimmerman's suffering because he decided to go to the store that evening. Zimmerman could also be to blame for his suffering because he chose to get out of bed that morning and go about his day.

Hell, let's back on up the time tables, Martin's parents are to blame for Zimmerman's suffering, because they were directly responsible for Martin's conception, birth and upbringing, which set the timeline into effect wherein he would eventually choose to go to the store, come back to the neighborhood and end up beating up Zimmerman and getting shot because of his assault of Zimmerman. Or also, we could say Zimmerman's parents are to blame for Zimmerman's suffering because they were directly responsible for Zimmerman's conception, birth and upbringing, which set the timeline into effect wherein Zimmerman would get out of bed that day, go about his day and eventually report who he perceived to be a suspicious individual in his neighborhood and pursue the person from a distance on foot, which would lead to [what the physical evidence strongly suggests] him being assaulted and ending up firing the fatal shot that killed Martin. See how absurd this post of yours is? Blame does not lie with any single person outside of the person who stepped over the legal and ethical line and initiated the physical altercation. The physical evidence strongly suggests that individual was Martin.

 

That would be Zimmerman.

Really, how so?

Sure it can. Had Zimmerman waited at his car for the police to arrive none of this would have teken place.

I believe there is only one person to blame.

That would be Zimmerman's actions.

If you say so.

If you say so.

Thats the problem, the physical evidence itself is in question which is one of the many reasons Zimmerman himself is facing a M2 charge.

 

Trademarking his name and slogans such as "justice for Trayvon" have literally nothing to do with how people are excercising their first amendment rights by offering opinions as to what they believe Martin could be categorized as. Even a trademark will not stifle the first amendment. Sorry. Consider that point refuted.

I already addressed this ridiculous line of so-called "logic," you can respond to it if you'd like. It's one or two posts above.

Ad hominem and red herring logical fallacy both invoked in the same sentence. Wonderful. Care to try again?

Obviously people have the right to do what they will with their money. I'm not denying that. What I was doing was remarking upon the hypocrisy of condemning one side for looking for money while attempting to justify the other when it essentially boils down to the same thing--human greed.

Not really. I don't complain, I rationalize. I leave the complaining to the emotional leftists. I think both funds are for the most part ridiculous and set up mostly for profit. No hypocrisy there. However, I will say that I can see more merit in a fund--if controlled by an attorney or other third party rather than the individual--to contribue to the living, security and legal expenses of someone who is literally unable to find work for himself or step into the public spotlight because of the lynch mobs who want him dead before a trial than the merit in immediately trademarking the name of a dead loved one simply because the issue blew up unnecessarily and the family responsible for trademarking the name was most definitely partially to blame for how much the case blew up. It's not a race issue anymore, but the left doesn't seem to get that. The FBI, an organization which has multicultural agents who have dedicated years of their life to investigating the nature of racially motivated hate crimes has publically announced that they could find no racial motivation for the killing. But unfortunately, the media got to the case before the FBI did, and they MADE it into a race issue when it clearly was not. So it become national news, when really it should have just been local news or at most--Florida news. And Martin's parents continued to be led around by the race vultures such as Jackson and Sharpton who were and are still convinced (because God knows they know better than the freaking FBI) that it is still an issue of race. Martin's parents have contributed to the national blow-up of this case and after doing that, trademarking their dead son's name and slogans with his name in them seem totally greedy. Do they have a third party controlling the financial assets coming into them because of that? Is there some kind of fund to actually benefit a person's neccessary living conditions, income or legal expenses that was set up by them? If there is a third party in control of those assets and if the majority of those assets are going to neccessary things or charity or something of the sort, please by all means fill me in. If not, then Zimmerman's fund and the fund for Martin's family do not compare.

 

Or, George could have just identified himself and diffused the situation.

 

Really? I'm going to have to go over the actual evidence with you again? Did you not pay attention to the other threads which made this abundantly clear? Zimmerman sustained physical injuries consistent with being beaten on his face and the back of his head. Martin sustained no such injuries, the only injuries reported from his autopsy were the fatal gunshot wound and an abrasion to his left ring finger, which actually lends even more credence to the theory that he was striking Zimmerman, because those sorts of injuries are often times sustained when striking someone else. Martin sustained no bruises, no black eyes, no cuts or scrapes that showed up in his autopsy. It is clear from this that Zimmerman's intention was not initially to cause him physical harm. The gunshot was fired after Zimmerman had sustained his injuries and that leads to the reasonable conclusion that Zimmerman pulled the trigger to defend himself against further injury. End of story. This is not debatable. This is what the physical evidence shows.

Your point is circular, fallacious and moot. It utilizes the "coulda shoulda woulda" style of arguing which is simply not realistic. Lots of things could have happened to avoid this incident. Martin could have stayed at home--it wouldn't have happened. Martin could have asked Zimmerman what was going on when he was being followed and had a reasonable discussion with him instead of swinging on him like a hyped up teenager who thinks he's tough crap--the incident wouldn't have happened. There are so many ways this incident could have been avoided, the leftist tripe that it was all on Zimmerman to stay in his vehicle will not fly in a fair trial. The defense will have no problem batting that fallacious line of so-called "logic" back to where it came from much as I've done so here. What the judge and/or jury will be concerned with was whether or not Zimmerman did anything illegal or criminal by getting out of his truck to follow Martin. The answer to that is "no." Refuted.

And you are certainly welcome and entitled to your "beliefs" regardless of how delusional they are.

You apparently missed the whole point of my response. There are many other people who could be considered "indirectly" responsible for what happened that night, including Martin himself. The judge and jury however will not be concerned with who may have contributed "indirectly" to the incident, they will want to know who was directly responsible. The physical evidence at this time points to Martin.

The physical evidence was never in "question," the Murder 2 charge had been filed without even including the physical evidence for the signing magistrate to review. It had been deliberately ommitted. Had it been in the probable cause affidavit like it was supposed to be, the charge may never have passed the magistrate who was deceived by Corey's unethical and deliberate--or incompetent--omission of the relevant facts of the case. The physical evidence is solid. If you'd like to point out what about the physical evidence is supposedly "not solid," that's fine. In fact, I challenge you to point out exactly what about the physical evidence showing the injuries Zimmerman sustained versus Martin's autopsy report does not solidly point to Martin having assaulted Zimmerman. Zimmerman didn't even throw any kind of punches at Martin, based on Martin's autopsy. There were no bruises, no cuts, no scrapes, etc. Only the fatal gunshot wound and an abrasion on the left ring finger, which suggested to an even stronger extend that Martin had been hitting Zimmerman. But please, CSI Super, break that evidence down and tell the rest of the class how it's not "solid." Please do. I'm going to enjoy it.

 

Thanks for the consistent non-contributory posts to this thread and many others like it. We all appreciate your "yes man" status, and that's actually an honest statement. It's humorous how you post so many supportive things for other people involved in the actual argument, but really don't do much formulating of your own thoughts and arguments. Please do continue with the amusing antics.

 

Again, this is more "coulda, woulda shoulda" bullcrap from the left. Yes he could have, but he wasn't obligated to. Martin could also have identified himself and diffused the situation. We know they exchanged words at some point in time, Zimmerman could have identified himself, but Martin could have too. He could have said "hey look, I don't know why you're following me, but I'm just on my way home to my dad's house here in these complexes," or something of the sort. Your argument placing all of the "diffusing" responsiblity on Zimmerman is simply not realistic nor objective and the reason for that is that it doesn't fit your twisted and one-sided agenda. They both could have done things much differently, but you will never admit that. Trayvon did nothing wrong in your mind, even by repeatedly beating on Zimmerman. How incredibly jocose.

 

Your attempted wit falls short as it always has. Nothing I have written here could be considered in line with the definition of the word "novel," I have a feeling that your position simply throws such things out there because you don't read very well in general or something of the sort. Perhaps my vernacular and verbose arguments are beyond the comprehension and patience of some. I guess I can understand that. I wrote perhaps a few paragraphs, Johnny. If a few paragraphs are too much for you to read, then it's quite apparent that you either don't like to read or what's probably more accurate--you don't like to read the truth stated by people who oppose your own ludicrous beliefs.

If that were truly your ultimate position--"it will be what is decided during the trial, all else is irrelevant"--then you would not be posting in these threads for any reason, because your claimed "philosophy" would categorize it as a "waste of time." So you refute your own statement calling this issue "nothing more complicated than that" with your repeated non-contributory posts in threads such as this acting as every leftist debater's "yes man." But like I said, please continue, I have no qualms with your non-contributory posts. If nothing else, it provides unintended humor value.

 

It's funny how NO ONE can provide any logical post where the charge against GZ can be shown. No one provides any solid evidence backing their position. When asked they defer to the jury, the State, etc...as if The State has never lost a case. Hilarious! The reason NO ONE has anything is because there is nothing.

 

You don't seem to understand, the imaginary, wistful, "evidence" of the lying liberal lynchers is very solid. They have hearsay evidence from people as far away as Europe, maybe Mars. While all you have is actual physical evidence. Liberal lies trump that all the time.

 

Its called a discussion. Maybe you don't realize that and court are two different things?

 

Wistful evidence?

Have you read the evidence dumps, listened to the SPD interviews?

 

Frank Taaffee was arrested last night.. DUI.

http://www.bustedmugshots.com/florida/sanford/francis-taaffe/59699981

 

Of course he hasn't

 

wow, you even missed the probable cause affidavit approved by 3 independent judges?

 

The other threads are really no different than this one.

Actually he didn't. Pleae explain how somone can be repeatedly punched in the face and have no scratches, no bruises, no marks, no cuts nothing. Your head is slammed numreous times on concrete and all you have is two superficial wounds. Sorry, won't fly.

So you are punching someon numreous times all you have is one litte scratch on one finger. No swollen or bruiesed knuckles. No cuts on his knuckles.

Exactly, so Zimmerman just layed there and did nothing.

Oh he just wanted to get his ass whooped, come on man.

To hell if it is not debateable. This guy had no defensive wounds whatsoever, Trayvon had no injuries that would show Zimmerman fighting back or at least trying to defend himself.

To somebody who wants to stick their head in the sand.

Now that post is coulda, shoulda, woulda. Zimmerman could have diffesed the whole situation, but he chose not to. What would you do if somone driving by you in the nihg slows down and starts stalking you? Zimmerman should have waited on the police to confront Trayvon that is what they are paid to do. Zimmerman had no authority to (*)(*)(*)(*) with that kid in no shape , form or fashion.

AS are you.

To hell with answering this short story you have written.

Answer me this Zimmerman claims he was going back to his truck when Trayvon came up behind him. Actually here it is:

The witness heard the noise behind her house, the T in the sidewalk is not behind the houses.

You make the claim Trayvon left and came back, which means he would have went South and came back North. Zimmerman claims that Trayvon punched him in the nose and he fell back which means Trayvon would have been coming North and Zimmerman South which means Zimmerman would have fell back towards the T or off the sidewalk. Wit 6 claims Trayvon had Zimmerman pinned to the ground. Where was Wit 6, where did he see Zimmerman pinned to the ground? With all of that said how did he end up killing this kid 30 - 40 feet south of the T and off the sidewalk.

Explain this for us since you claim to know what happened.

 

You were shown yesterday and disappeared all of a sudden. Glad to see you back.

 

They have made up in their mind that this guy was justified in killing this unarmed kid, so there is really nothing you can tell them to change their minds.

See in their minds all black 17yr olds are criminals, so if you kill some of them you are basically doing them a favor. Sound familiar with someone from back in the day.

 

Cut the dramatics already, seriously. This has nothing to do with race and if Trayvon had been white I would be just as disgusted.

 

I wasn't shown anything. I just lost interest in people who believe in myths and fantasies. NO ONE presented any facts yesterday or any other day. It's just the same ol" drivel, nothing new. When someone has something I may be interested other than that trashing GZ is just desperate.

 

Denying facts does not mean there are no facts.